News: FoxSports: McKenzie Still Wants Out

Discussion in 'News Zone' started by Hostile, May 18, 2004.

  1. Shuttemdown41

    Shuttemdown41 Member

    804 Messages
    7 Likes Received
    I just don't see how it can be that the Packers have ALL the leverage in this situation. This is what I get from the article that agrees with what's been said about the Pack having the leverage over McKenzie:

    "McKenzie has little leverage. If he sits out the 2004 season, he'd still owe the Packers three years of service. The Packers could wipe away his $2.75 million salary in 2004, but they'd be without their top defender in a season of high hopes.

    The Packers, who used their top two picks in the draft last month on cornerbacks, taking Ahmad Carroll in the first round and Joey Thomas in the second, have said they hope McKenzie comes around and reports to their June minicamp."

    So if they don't find someone willing to pony up what they want then McKenzie sits and they do this again next year. Favre isn't exactly getting any younger so their window is definitely closing in a hurry. For a team with title aspirations to just let one of their better defenders sit out a year when they could get something in return for him instead isn't the wisest move in my humble opinion. Now that something they are asking for is supposedly a first plus another pick/player.

    This is where I'll argue that the Packers DO NOT have all the leverage. Look at it like this. Go back to this year's draft. You're the Buffalo Bills and are trying to trade with the Dallas Cowboys for their 22nd pick so you can grab JP Losman. Is no price too high for you? Well, to the sane GM of course not. There is definitely going to be a price that goes beyond what you are willing to pay. Do you seriously think Buffalo would have given up say their next 2 firsts, 2 seconds a fourth and a fifth for the right to our 22nd? This is where the line is drawn as to how much leverage a team trying to trade a commodity (whether it be draft pick or player) actually has.

    Of course Green Bay can positively pin themselves to getting that first plus pick/player but how many teams will find that to be an acceptable price for a 28 year old corner who they will have to reward with a new supposedly more
    lucrative contract than the one that is currently causing him to demand this trade in the first place? I'd venture not many, but again, that's just IMHO. It's at this point my friends that I believe ALL the leverage starts to turn into some leverage, but not as much the team may have originally thought.

    Anyways, it's the cheeseheads for pete's sake, I hate them so I'm done with Mike and his issues with the Pack. Suffice to say, I wouldn't be thrilled with the idea of the Cowboys trading a first plus another pick/player (unless maybe it was Lynn Scott by chance :D ) for McKenzie. Actually I might be downright miffed about it, but since when has what I cared about or thought mattered to the FO of the Cowboys right?
  2. aggiecurt05

    aggiecurt05 Member

    125 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    I agree, the Pack has two options: let him sit and get nothing out of him, or send him away for whatever they can get. If they let him sit, it is like not using all your salary cap- while you don't lose anything, it isn't smart because you aren't maximizing your resources. Further, if he sits a full season and still doesn't play, then his trade value goes way down (think Glenn- he was a Pro Bowl wide reciever when he sat for the Pats, and they only got a 5th if my memory serves me correctly). As for the Cowboys, they won't offer anything more than a 2nd I would guess, and I bet no one does any better. A second would be a good deal for both teams. On the other hand, if we offered our 1st and our 5th (which we won't, and that would be ludicrous), then that would basically mean the trade with Buffalo was Steven Jackson/Kevin Jones for Julius Jones and Mike McKenzie. All of a sudden, the cowboys look really good.
  3. Skeptic

    Skeptic New Member

    851 Messages
    0 Likes Received

    How many responses have to be made like this one before that changes?

    Guess it's a "good" way to get some name recognition.
  4. TheHustler

    TheHustler Active Member

    5,392 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    we dont have a third next year (henson)
  5. RatisBeast

    RatisBeast Chevy Guy

    1,753 Messages
    39 Likes Received
    I wouldn't wanna give a 1st for him that would ruin the whole point of trading down IMO. Hopefully they cut him and we can sign him... :D
  6. Eskimo

    Eskimo Well-Known Member

    12,821 Messages
    496 Likes Received
    I wouldn't give up a first rounder for a malcontent borderline pro-bowl caliber CB who has changed agents multiple times and is trying to re-negotiate a contract that he signed just two years ago. The risk is not worth the reward. I would rather just take my chances with a first round CB next year who could be had much more cheaply and without all the headache that he will represent. Heck, we may not even need one if one of Thornton or Hunter or Powell pan out as good #2 CB.

    I also would not even give up a 2nd rounder for him. What is his ultimate upside? He is not ever going to be a great player. IMO, it is not worth taking on such malcontents unless they are going to be difference makers.

    A 3rd rounder - seems reasonable but we don't have one, unfortunatley.
  7. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison New Member

    408 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The guy is not a team player, he is a guy that is going to be too stupid to know his own value and deal with financially in the future, straight trade with current contract he is worth something, otherwise, hell with him.
  8. Zaxor

    Zaxor Virtus Mille Scuta

    8,398 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    I think the kid is trouble just waiting to happen

  9. Nightshade

    Nightshade Active Member

    1,811 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Why does he want the trade?
  10. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison New Member

    408 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Not happy with current deal, wants more money, thinks he's worth more than he's getting, and, essentially, more than he's worth.
  11. Mattsdad

    Mattsdad Member

    593 Messages
    12 Likes Received
    Now that started my day with a laugh :D
  12. 31WillHammerU

    31WillHammerU New Member

    443 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The argument has been made for not bringing in a Vet QB, as to not stunt Henson's growth. I think that same argument can be made here for Hunter. We have got to see what we have. He needs to compete without a high priced Vet mucking it up.

    Pete could surprise us all. No High Priced Vets. Let Youth Be Served.
  13. OldButDeadly

    OldButDeadly Bill's Waterboy

    353 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Soooo....Why don't we trade Green bay....

    Chad Hutchinson seen here prior to signing with the Cowboys

    plus a pick....they are looking for a QB aren't they??


Share This Page